I hope it gets some. Whale music. The idea is quite romantic. Like really good opera, you might not understand the words, but hopefully you totally "get" the feelings. #seaglider
@Curves: I love whale sounds, but the cynic in me says expect a lot of unknown sounds, and perhaps some flatulence from see critters. Perhaps a Bloop if they are lucky. #seaglider
I work on the Predator program (which also includes the Reaper) and I can tell you that there's no way the Reaper would have continued it's "mission to target enemies on the ground" without operator input. It is not a fully autonomous aircraft. It can follow an "Operational Mission" which only includes where to fly, at what altitude, and at what speed. All other operations are performed by humans.
When the plane goes "lost link" (losses contact with the pilot) it follows what is known as an "Emergency Mission" which is merely a pathway back to base marked by a series of checkpoints. If the aircraft regains link, (even for a split second) it goes back to flying it's operational mission until it losses link again. Once it losses link again it'll start the emergency mission over again (if it hadn't been updated since it last regained link) starting back at checkpoint number one.
There's a good chance that it had gone lost link, started it's emergency mission and started heading home and then at some point regained link for a moment and then lost it again, thus causing it to turn around and start the emergency mission once again. This is usually a bad scenario because having had to restart it's emergency mission it may not have had enough fuel to complete the emergency mission a second time before making it back to base, thus an imminent crash was coming. The Air Force would rather shoot the plane down (thus destroying all the equipment on the plane) than let it crash and be retrieved by the Afghanistan government or military. The technology is valuable and one that sets the U.S. above all others in military warfare, it must be protected.
@Coolmodo: Correct, it would just fly until it ran out of gas. The problem is if it was armed. Then there would be unexploded ordinance at the crash site, which depending on where it crashed could be used for ieds.
@ shenanigans61 I'm an exUSAF airman who worked with support personnel for the Predator. The UAV's do not replace a pilot, seeing as how an actual Commissioned Officer Pilot flies them. However, they were considering training Enlisted personal E-5 or higher to pilot them. Either way. SOMEONE is always piloting them. The benefit is that it remove the multi-billion dollar aircraft from the sky, as well as the pilot out of harms way. There should always be a place for manned aircraft, if anything as a last measure for the impending robot apocalypse. But with all seriousness, at our current deployed level of technology, a UAV still cannot perform all of the complex tasks and maneuvers of say an F-22. And in the event we have to go against a hostile Air Power, I still think Manned Aircraft would be more suited for certain tasks. That's my opinion anyway.
Calling these Drones is very wrong. the only thing they can do by themselves is fly home....and only if ive told them how to get there. they are the same as every other plane, the only difference is the pilot sits somewhere else, i still control everyting the plane does.
@Bombear: they are the same as every other plane, the only difference is the pilot sits somewhere else
You do realize that's the DEFINITION of what a drone is, right? I mean... The ACTUAL DEFINITION. From the DICTIONARY. It's a book you really should become familiar with.
1. A male bee, especially a honeybee, that is characteristically stingless, performs no work, and produces no honey. Its only function is to mate with the queen bee.
nope. I don't think that's the definition of a drone. These drones provide a very harsh sting and perform quite a bit of work. Although I suppose it's true that they produce zero honey.
@psychiccheese: Normally I'm all over dictionary issues. I mean there are several on my desk, just waiting to be grabbed when someone is wrong on the internet, but you just made me laugh. Thank you. It's a great start to the morning.
I see you quoted "pilots" through the article. All MQ-9 pilots have gone through Air Force flight school. Most have flown manned aircraft prior to flying the Reaper or Predator.Most of them have flown fighter aircraft. Weapon launch commands are given by the pilot like any other aircraft. The aircraft needs both the pilot and sensor operator working together to engage a target.
I'm in the USAF. It would have run until it ran out of fuel and crashed in some random place. It won't fire it's ordinances without user input, the same kind of user input that it wasn't responding to. It was shot down for 2 reasons: 1) we don't want the PR nightmare of the thing running out of fuel and falling out of the sky and killing one or more poor unsuspecting souls and 2) we don't want the technology getting into the wrong hands. When we shoot it down, we are easily able to recover the wreckage.
I wonder what would've happened if the Reaper hadn't been shot down. It is typically used for "hunter-killer" missions and targets enemies on the ground. Would it continue a mission like that without operator input?
Is this seriously a serious thought you had? Please tell me that was an ironic sort of meta-joke that I don't understand.
@Pope John Peeps II: Well, I think it's a valid and interesting question. If the Reaper didn't respond to it's fail-safe, that's a bug. If there is a bug, it's most likely in an unknown state. If it's in a unknown state, only God knows what it would have done.
@kidphat (loves bumblebee girl): Well, the thing is that it's NOT a valid question. Neither is in interesting. If you KNOW that the drone needs an operator to function, why would you even surmise that it could perform missions on its own? A bug would just make it fuck up. Just like your computer at home, it would probably crash, and then eventually crash LITERALLY.
I mean, I don't know all the various components that go into my computer, so I'm no high tech wonderkid. But the writer on a gadget blog should probably know that self-guiding, autonomous, free-firing murderbots haven't yet been invented.
@Pope John Peeps II: The plane itself doesn't need that kind of sophisticated AI. It takes its controls remotely from a station. However, if "something else" is feeding those controls, well...
@Pope John Peeps II: If a bug can cause loss of remote control (i.e. autonomous flight), why can't another bug cause release of ordinance (free-firing murderbots)?
11/13/09
11/14/09
11/13/09
09/17/09
When the plane goes "lost link" (losses contact with the pilot) it follows what is known as an "Emergency Mission" which is merely a pathway back to base marked by a series of checkpoints. If the aircraft regains link, (even for a split second) it goes back to flying it's operational mission until it losses link again. Once it losses link again it'll start the emergency mission over again (if it hadn't been updated since it last regained link) starting back at checkpoint number one.
There's a good chance that it had gone lost link, started it's emergency mission and started heading home and then at some point regained link for a moment and then lost it again, thus causing it to turn around and start the emergency mission once again. This is usually a bad scenario because having had to restart it's emergency mission it may not have had enough fuel to complete the emergency mission a second time before making it back to base, thus an imminent crash was coming. The Air Force would rather shoot the plane down (thus destroying all the equipment on the plane) than let it crash and be retrieved by the Afghanistan government or military. The technology is valuable and one that sets the U.S. above all others in military warfare, it must be protected.
09/15/09
09/15/09
09/15/09
I am panicking!!
What will happen when it starts fighting back?
09/15/09
09/15/09
I mean this thing is not designed to autonomously select and attack targets right?
Without a human operator it's just a nice RC gadget that can autonomously maintain altitude and fly back home, sometimes?
09/15/09
09/15/09
09/14/09
09/15/09
You do realize that's the DEFINITION of what a drone is, right? I mean... The ACTUAL DEFINITION. From the DICTIONARY. It's a book you really should become familiar with.
09/15/09
Drone
n.
1. A male bee, especially a honeybee, that is characteristically stingless, performs no work, and produces no honey. Its only function is to mate with the queen bee.
nope. I don't think that's the definition of a drone. These drones provide a very harsh sting and perform quite a bit of work. Although I suppose it's true that they produce zero honey.
09/15/09
09/14/09
09/15/09
09/14/09
09/14/09
09/14/09
Is this seriously a serious thought you had? Please tell me that was an ironic sort of meta-joke that I don't understand.
09/14/09
Don't worry, no fear of planes yet. Airports on the other hand...
09/14/09
also, was this an American Drone? that was just lost and then shot down by american fighters?
kooky
09/14/09
Based on what I read, it was an American drone which lost communication with its operators and was taken down by the US Air Force.
09/15/09
09/15/09
I mean, I don't know all the various components that go into my computer, so I'm no high tech wonderkid. But the writer on a gadget blog should probably know that self-guiding, autonomous, free-firing murderbots haven't yet been invented.
09/15/09
09/15/09
09/15/09
As far as YOU know... ; )
09/15/09
09/14/09
09/14/09
09/14/09
09/15/09